White House: Ukraine aid held up in part over election probe

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source doesn't seem to think it's a reliable source ....

The point is the evidence that Russia 'hacked' the DNC is highly suspect for many reasons (the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine the server, etc).

Personally, I think that the charges against Julian Assange are cover, to get him here, and get his testimony about what really happened, and that it will turn out that Seth Rich was in fact the leaker and source, not Russia.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source doesn't seem to think it's a reliable source ....

The point is the evidence that Russia 'hacked' the DNC is highly suspect for many reasons (the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine the server, etc).

HOLY CRAP. THERE WAS NEVER A SERVER. It is like calling a river a pond.

Crowdstrike and the DNC IT captured/imaged the data for examination.

It was a "virtual server" spread across systems, precursor to ubiquitous cloud technology now.

Personally, I think that the charges against Julian Assange are cover, to get him here, and get his testimony about what really happened, and that it will turn out that Seth Rich was in fact the leaker and source, not Russia.

Good luck with that. Meanwhile discount all of the intercept communications between Assange and Russian Agents that Assange has not denied, only tried to spin.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Your source doesn't seem to think it's a reliable source ....

The point is the evidence that Russia 'hacked' the DNC is highly suspect for many reasons (the DNC refused to allow the FBI to examine the server, etc).

HOLY CRAP. THERE WAS NEVER A SERVER. It is like calling a river a pond.

Crowdstrike and the DNC IT captured/imaged the data for examination.

Exactly. They (foreign owned Crowdstrike and foreign/Pakistani IT with lots of questions about their loyalties) controlled the entire process, where normal procedure would have been the FBI would have sent in their forensics team to do the assessment as soon as the 'hack' was discovered.

So, all we have is the word of some highly questionable sources as to the integrity of the data. I wouldn't trust anything they gave me wouldn't be loaded with malware, much less that it might be a forsnically valid copy of a system I was supposed to inspect.

It was a "virtual server" spread across systems, precursor to ubiquitous cloud technology now.

I seriously doubt that. A single VM would be plenty, but the fact is, none of us know any of the details of the system they had to even guess. Maybe it was all in the cloud - maybe it was another old internet facing Exchange Server 2003 -shudder- stashed in the hags basement.

"Personally, I think that the charges against Julian Assange are cover, to get him here, and get his testimony about what really happened, and that it will turn out that Seth Rich was in fact the leaker and source, not Russia."

Good luck with that. Meanwhile discount all of the intercept communications between Assange and Russian Agents that Assange has not denied, only tried to spin.

Do tell (linky's)...

All I know for certain is that Assange has repeatedly and in no uncertain terms denied that the emails came from Russia, and, while he said he could not confirm or deny that Seth Rich was his source for the emails, Seth's unsolved murder is, apparently, the only time Wikileaks has ever offered a reward for solving someone's murder - at least I can't find a reference to any other rewards they have ever offered.